CHAPTER LXXIII.

A few final words as to Thomas Ward (or Warde), who was, I hold, no less than Edward Oldcorne and his Penitent, the joint arbiter of destinies and the controller of fates.

Indeed, as previously stated in an earlier portion of this Inquiry, my own opinion is that Christopher Wright probably unlocked his burthened heart to his connection, Thomas Ward, of whose constancy in friendship he would be, by long years of experience, well assured, at a time anterior to that at which he unbosomed himself to the holy Jesuit Priest, that skilled, wise, loving minister of a mind diseased.

While Ward, on his part, readily and willingly, though at the imminent risk of being himself charged as a knowing accomplice and accessory to the Plot, undertook the diplomatic engineering of the whole movement, whereby the Plot was so effectually and speedily spun round on its axis, even if well-nigh at the eleventh hour.

In bidding farewell, a long farewell, to Thomas Ward, the following extracts from a letter of Sir Edward Hoby[179] to Sir Thomas Edmunds, Ambassador at Brussels, are important, although some of the passages have already appeared in the earlier part of this Inquiry:——

“Such as are apt to interpret all things to the worst, will not believe other but that Lord Mounteagle might in a policy cause this letter to be sent, fearing the discovery already of the letter; the rather that one Thomas Ward, a principal man about him, is suspected to be accessory to the treason. Others otherwise ... some say that Fawkes (alias Johnson) was servant to one Thomas Percy; others that he is a Jesuit and had a shirt of hair next his skin.

“Early on the Monday [_vere_ Tuesday] morning, the Earl of Worcester was sent to Essex House to signify the matter to the Earl of Northumberland, whom he found asleep in his bed, and hath done since his best endeavour for his apprehension ... Some say that Northumberland received the like letter that Mounteagle did, and concealed it ...

“Tyrwhyt is come to London; Tresham sheweth himself; _and Ward walketh up and down_.”[180] (The italics are mine.)

Surely, the twain facts that Thomas Ward “walked up and down,” and that his brother, Marmaduke, was also at large, with the latter’s eldest daughter, Mary, lodging in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn (although we have seen the Master of Newby apprehended in Warwickshire, in the very heart and centre of the conspirators), _tend to demonstrate that the King, his Privy Council, and Government were very much obligated to the gentleman-servant and, almost certainly, distant kinsman of William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle, and that they knew it_.[A]

[Footnote A: Is it possible that some time after the Plot, Thomas Ward retired into his native Yorkshire, and became the officer or agent for Lord William Howard’s and his wife’s Hinderskelfe and other Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland estates? I think it is possible; for I find the name “Thomas Warde” from time to time in the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_” (Surtees Soc). See Supplementum III. I am inclined to think that the reason Father Richard Holtby, the distinguished Yorkshire Jesuit, who was _socius_, or secretary, to Father Henry Garnet, and subsequently Superior of the Jesuits in England, was never laid hold of by the Government, was that Holtby had two powerful friends at Court in Lord William Howard, of Naworth and Hinderskelfe Castles, and in Thomas Warde (or Ward). Father Holtby was born at Fryton Hall, in the Parish of Hovingham, between Hovingham and Malton. Now, Fryton is less than a mile from Slingsby, where I suspect Thomas Warde (or Ward) finally settled down, and both are only a few miles distant from Hinderskelfe Castle, now Castle Howard. Fryton Old Hall is at present, I believe, occupied by Mr. Leaf, and is the property of Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, the descendant of Lord William Howard. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of Slingsby Hall, I surmise, was a descendant, lineal or collateral, of Thomas Ward, of the days of Queen Elizabeth and King James I.]

From a grateful King and Country, Lord Mounteagle received, as we have already learned, a payment of £700 a year, equal to nearly £7,000 a year in our money.[A]

[Footnote A: Lord Mounteagle’s reward was £300 per annum for life, and £200 per annum to him and his heirs for ever in fee farm rents. Salisbury declared that Mounteagle’s Letter was “the first and only means” the Government had to discover that “most wicked and barbarous Plot.” Personally, I am bound to say I believe him. The title Lord Morley and Mounteagle is now in abeyance (see Burke’s “_Extinct Peerages_”); but let us hope that we may see it revived. An heir must be in existence, one would imagine; for the peerages Morley and Mounteagle would be granted by the Crown for ever, I presume. There is at the present date a Lord Monteagle, whose title is of a more recent creation.]

But Ben Jonson, the rare Ben Jonson, the friend of Shakespeare, of Donne,[B] and other wits of the once far-famed Mermaid Tavern, Bread Street, London, deemed the temporal saviour of his Country to be still insufficiently requited. So the Poet, invoking his Muse, penned, in the young peer’s honour, the following stately epigram:——

[Footnote B: John Donne the celebrated metaphysical poet, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, and author of the once well-known “_Pseudo-Martyr_,” which Donne wrote at the request of King James himself. For one of Donne’s ancestors _and descendants_, see _ante_ p. 160.

Henry Donne (or Dunne), a barrister, was brother to John Donne. He was, I believe, implicated in the Babington conspiracy along with Edward Abington, brother to Thomas Abington, and about ten other young papist gentlemen, some of very high birth, great wealth, and brilliant prospects. At the chambers of Henry Donne, in Thavies Inn, Holborn, London, “the Venerable” William Harrington, of Mount St. John, near Thirsk, was captured. Harrington fled to the College at Rheims to study for the priesthood, in consequence of the impression made upon him by Campion, who was harboured, in the spring of 1581, for ten days at Mount St. John; Campion there wrote his famous “_Decem Rationes_.” Harrington was executed at the London Tyburn, for his priesthood, in 1594. He is said to have struggled with the hangman when the latter began to quarter him alive. Harrington is mentioned in Archbishop Harsnett’s “_Popish Impostures_,” a book known to Shakespeare. Harrington was a second cousin to Guy Fawkes, through Guy’s paternal grandmother, Ellen Harrington, of York.]

“TO WILLIAM LORD MOUNTEAGLE.

“Lo, what my country should have done (have raised An obelisk, or column to thy name; Or if she would but modestly have praised Thy fact, in brass or marble writ the same). I, that am glad of thy great chance, here do! And proud, my work shall out-last common deeds, Durst think it great, and worthy wonder too, But thine: for which I do’t, so much exceeds! My country’s parents I have many known; But saver of my country, thee alone.”

RECAPITULATION OF PROOFS, ARGUMENT, AND CONCLUSIONS.

(1) The revealing plotter cannot have been Tresham or any one of the other eight who were condemned to death in Westminster Hall; otherwise he would have _pleaded_ such fact.

(2) The revealing plotter must have been amongst those who survived not to tell the tale: that is, either Catesby, Percy, John Wright, or Christopher Wright.

(3) Christopher Wright, a subordinate conspirator introduced late in the conspiracy, was the revealing conspirator.

(4) Father Edward Oldcorne, S.J., was the Penman of the Letter.

(5) Thomas Ward was the diplomatic Go-between common to both.

_All these three were Yorkshiremen._

(6) Ralph Ashley was the messenger who conveyed the Letter to Lord Mounteagle’s page, who was already in the street when the Letter-carrier arrived.

_Perhaps a Yorkshireman._

(7) Mounteagle knew a letter was coming. Known to Edmund Church, Esq., his confidant.

(8) Thomas Ward, on Sunday, the 27th October (the day after the delivery), told Thomas Winter, one of the principal plotters, that Salisbury had received the document; and on Sunday, the 3rd November, that Salisbury had shown it to the King.

(9) Christopher Wright, who was at Lapworth when the Letter was delivered, and within twenty miles of Father Oldcorne, saw Thomas Winter some little time subsequent to the delivery of the Letter.

(10) Christopher Wright is said to have been the first who ascertained that the Plot was discovered.

(11) Christopher Wright is said to have counselled flight in different directions.

(12) Christopher Wright announced to Thomas Winter, very early on Tuesday, the 5th of November, the capture of Fawkes that morning.

(13) Father Oldcorne’s handwriting to-day resembles that of the Letter; by comparison of documents, certainly one of which is in Oldcorne’s handwriting.

(14) Oldcorne was accused by the Government of sending “letters up and down to prepare men’s minds for the insurrection.”

(15) Brother Ashley, his servant, was accused of carrying “letters to and fro about this conspiracy.”

(16) Father Henry Garnet, Oldcorne’s Superior, mysteriously changed his purpose expressed on the 4th October, of returning to London; and on the 29th October went from Gothurst to Coughton, in Warwickshire. (I think Garnet’s main reason for going to Coughton was in order to meet Catesby, and endeavour to induce him to discard Percy’s counsel and to seek refuge in flight.)

(17) Father Oldcorne evaded giving a direct answer as to the Plot, when questioned by Littleton, after November 5th.

(18) Hence, the facts _both before and after_ the delivery of the Letter are consistent with, and indeed converge towards, the hypothesis sought by this Inquiry to be proved.

(19) The circumstance that Christopher Wright displayed a strangely marked disposition to “hang about” the prime conspirator, Thomas Winter, _after_ the sending of the Letter, is a suspicious fact, strongly indicative of a consciousness on Christopher Wright’s part of a special responsibility in connection with the revelation of the Plot; as showing anxiety for personal knowledge that the train of revelation lighted by himself had, so to speak, taken fire.

(20) Christopher Wright lived not to tell the tale.

(21) Hence, the hypothesis is a theory established, with moral certitude, mainly by Circumstantial Evidence, which latter “mosaics” perfectly.

(22) Finally, the crowning proof of the theory sought by this Book to be established is found in these nine words of the _post scriptum_ of 21st October, 1605, to letter dated 4th October, 1605, under the hand of Father Garnet to Father Parsons, in Rome[A]: “This letter being returned unto me again, FOR REASON OF A FRIEND’S STAY IN THE WAY, I blotted out some words purposing to write the same by the next opportunity, as I will do apart:”——The word “stay” here being used to signify “check.” _Cf._, Shakespeare’s “King John,” II., 2: and see Glossary to Globe Edition (Macmillan).

[Footnote A: This letter, I understand, is still extant, and is in the archives of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. I wonder whether by any of the rigorous tests of modern science these “blotted out” words can be discerned. Probably they have some reference to the Plot. The late Rev. John Morris, S.J., thought they had not. But on this point I am obliged to differ, _in toto_, from that painstaking editor of much invaluable Elizabethan Catholic literature. See the learned Jesuit’s remarks on this letter of the 4th October, 1605, in “_The Condition of Catholics under James I._” (Longmans), p. 228.

Father Morris contends that for Father Garnet to have inserted a reference to the Gunpowder Plot “between two such subjects as the choice of Lay-brothers and his own want of money,” would have been for Garnet to have exhibited a disposition “to be the most erratic of letter-writers.”

But, surely, Father Morris’s argument is feeble in the extreme when regard is had to the fact that poor Henry Garnet’s mind, _from the 25th July, 1605, when he first heard from Tesimond, by way of confession, the general particulars of the Plot, down to the 4th of October, 1605_, was a very weltering chaos of grief, distress, and perplexity. And, therefore, the most natural thing in the world was for him to exhibit a trifle of eccentricity in the style of his epistolary correspondence, in such trying circumstances, even with so acute and caustic a critic as Father Parsons.

I have said that about the 25th July, 1605 (St. James’-tide), Garnet had, by way of confession, the _general particulars_ of the Plot, because I think that Garnet obtained from Tesimond final details of the Plot at Great Harrowden a fortnight before Michaelmas (11th October); in fact, after the return from St. Winefrid’s Well, in Flintshire, Wales.

It is, however, probable that about the 21st of October, at Gothurst, Tesimond may have made a further communication to Garnet, possibly in consequence of Garnet’s sending for Tesimond _after_ he (Garnet) had received “_the friend’s stay in the way_.” For the old tradition was that Garnet _first_ had particulars from Tesimond, by way of confession, about the 21st October. (See the earlier editions of Lingard’s “_History_.”) But, of course, this was an error by _three months_, Garnet first receiving at least general particulars from Tesimond about the 25th of July. (At some future date I may, perhaps, write an essay on “_Garnet after the 21st October, 1605_,” but at present I have not space to pursue this matter further.)]

SUPPLEMENTA.

SUPPLEMENTUM I.

GUY FAWKES.

The forefathers of Guy Fawkes almost certainly sprang from Nidderdale, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. See Foster’s “_Yorkshire Families_,” under Hawkesworth, of Hawkesworth, and Fawkes, of Farnley.

Guy’s grandfather was William Fawkes, of York, who married a York lady, Ellen Harrington.[A]

[Footnote A: Ellen Harrington’s father was Lord Mayor of York, in the reign of Henry VIII., in the year 1536.]

William Fawkes became Registrar of the Exchequer Court of the Archbishop of York, and died between the years 1558-1565.

William Fawkes had two sons and two daughters——Thomas Fawkes, a merchant-stapler, and Edward Fawkes, a Notary or Proctor of the Ecclesiastical Court, and afterwards an Advocate of the Consistory Court of the Archbishop of York. (Certainly it is a strange and bitter irony that an ancestry like this should have brought forth such a moral monster as poor Guy Fawkes afterwards became. But our guiding motto must be: “Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.”)

Edward Fawkes married a lady whose Christian name was Edith, but her surname is unknown. She was the mother of four children——two sons and two daughters. Only one of her sons grew to man’s estate, and this was the hapless Guy.

(Only four children are known of with certainty; but Guy _possibly may_ have had another brother, who was a student at the Inns of Court, in November, 1605.)

Now, the exact house where Edith Fawkes gave birth to her ill-fated boy is at present not known with certitude. There are four traditions respecting the place. Two traditions say the house was on the south side of High Petergate, York; one tradition that it was on the north side, adjoining the alley called Minster Gates; the fourth tradition that it was at Bishopthorpe. Personally, I am in favour of the Minster Gates’ tradition. But the Bishopthorpe tradition is worthy of a respectful hearing.

My friend, Mr. William Camidge, F.R.H.S. (than whom no man now living in York has a greater, if indeed as great, knowledge concerning the City’s antiquarian lore) tells me in a letter, dated the 5th of November, 1901, that in old Thomas Gent’s “_Rippon_” (1733) there is mention made of Bishopthorpe as being Guy’s birthplace. Gent says, “The house opposite the church[A] is said to be the birthplace of Guy Faux.”

[Footnote A: _I.e._, the _old_ Bishopthorpe Church. The present Bishopthorpe Church is a handsome structure of recent date, at the entrance to the village from York.]

Mr. Camidge continues: “I found, a few years ago, rooted in the minds of the oldest inhabitants of Bishopthorpe, the positive assurance that Guy Fawkes was born at Bishopthorpe, and the site of the house was indicated by several persons. I found one of the descendants of the former owner of the house, who assured me that her father always held that Guy Fawkes was born in the house; that my informant’s great grandfather maintained the same; and that for two or three generations they had shown the house as the place of Guy Fawkes’ birth. The site of the house is now a pleasure-garden; but a stone was put in the ground to mark the site.”

Now it is a remarkable fact that in almost all, if indeed not quite all, of those places where there has been a strong local tradition to the effect that the Gunpowder conspirators had some association with a particular spot, subsequent investigation has found the tradition to be well authenticated. (This was pointed out by David Jardine sixty years ago.)

Yet the strongest argument against the Bishopthorpe tradition is that Guy’s baptismal register is to-day found at the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, in the City of York.

Now, in the time of Elizabeth, as Dr. Elzé has pointed out in his “_Life of Shakespeare_,” a child would be _baptized on the third day after birth_. Hence, on the whole, I cannot personally accept the Bishopthorpe tradition as to the _birthplace_ of Guy Fawkes.

It is, however, more than possible that as a babe in arms Guy Fawkes may have _lived_ at Bishopthorpe. For the Act of Uniformity, whereby the York Court of High Commission had been established, would bring much legal work to his father, Edward Fawkes; and that the latter found it convenient to have a house in close proximity to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of York, a leading member of the High Commission, is one of the likeliest things in the world.

In these circumstances, then, the present-day inhabitants of Bishopthorpe may still lay the flattering unction to their souls (if they wish so to do) that Guy Fawkes drank in his mother’s milk in their picturesque Yorkshire village, on the banks of the noble Ouse.

Mr. J. W. Knowles, of Stonegate, York, another gentleman well versed in York’s antiquities, informed me in August, 1901, that a Mr. John Robert Watkinson, of Redeness Street, Layerthorpe, York, held a tradition that Guy Fawkes’ birthplace was in the house adjoining the Minster Gates.

Accordingly, some little time afterwards, I wrote to Mr. Watkinson, who at once kindly replied in a letter, dated 22nd October, 1901, as follows:——

“My reason for thinking that the house in High Petergate, at the corner of the Minster Gates, ... is the house where Guy Fawkes was born, is this:

“Some fifty years ago I was working at the same house when an old Minster mason, named Townsend, told me it was the house where Guy Fawkes was born. Job Knowles, an old bell-ringer and watchman at the Minster at the time Jonathan Martin set the Minster on fire, also told me it was the same house.

“It is an Elizabethan[A] house, but it has been re-fronted, which you would see if you went inside and looked at the wainscotting and the carved mantel-piece.”

[Footnote A: In a subsequent letter, Mr. Watkinson, who is a Protestant, tells me that he is in the seventieth year of his age, and that he is descended collaterally from Thomas Watkinson, of Menthorpe, near Selby, the father of “the Venerable” Robert Watkinson, priest, who suffered martyrdom at the London Tyburn in 1602, two years before the Gunpowder Plot was hatched.]

Edward Fawkes died, aged forty-six, when his son, Guy, was not quite eight years old. He was buried in the Minster on the 17th January, 1578-9. About twenty-seven years afterwards this Yorkshire citizen’s thrice hapless child——by nature a tall, athletic man, but then, by torture of the rack, so crippled “that he was scarce able to go up the ladder”——met on the shameful gallows-tree, and on the quartering block, in the Old Palace Yard, Westminster, over against the Parliament House, the terrible death of a condemned traitor. The whole world knows the reason why.

Mistress Edith Fawkes, Guy’s mother, was married a second time to a gentleman named Dennis Bainbridge. He was connected with the John Pulleyn, Esq., of Scotton, near Knaresbrough, and the probabilities are that Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Bainbridge, and that lady’s children by her first husband, namely Guy, Elizabeth and Ann Fawkes, all lived by the favour of the young squire, John Pulleyn, in patriarchal fashion, at Scotton Hall. The Pulleyns and the Bainbridges were Roman Catholics, and their names (along with the names Walkingham, Knaresborough, and Bickerdyke) occur in Peacock’s “_List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_,” under the title “Parish of Farnham.” The name Percy, of Percy House, is not found in Peacock’s “_List_.”

[If the Bainbridges did not live at Scotton Hall, they may have lived at Percy House, hard-by the Hall. Percy House is now owned by Mr. Slater, of Farnham Hall, the property of the relatives of the late Charles Shann, Esquire, of Tadcaster.]

It is, therefore, easy to understand how it came to pass that the mind of young Guy Fawkes became impregnated with Roman Catholicism. For man is a creature of circumstances.

Yorkshire abounded in Roman Catholics in the time of Elizabeth (see the “_Hatfield MSS._” and numerous other contemporary records). Such was especially the case with the district round about Knaresbrough and Ripon. And recollecting that many Yorkshiremen had suffered a bloody death for their conscientious adherence to their religion between the years 1582 and Easter, 1604, when the Gunpowder Plot was hatched, one ceases to marvel at such a psychological puzzle as even the mind of Guy Fawkes.——See Challoner’s “_Missionary Priests_” and Pollen’s “_Acts of the English Martyrs_,” already frequently referred to.

[“The Venerable” martyrs, Robert Bickerdyke, Peter Snow, Ralph Grimston, Francis Ingleby, and John Robinson (some priests, others laymen) came from Low Hall, Farnham; “at or near Ripon;” Nidd, near Scotton; Ferensby and Ripley respectively. While the “Blessed” John Nelson came from Skelton, York, and the “Blessed” Richard Kirkeman from Addingham, near Ilkley (both priests). All these men suffered death for legal treason or felony based upon their religion between the years 1578 and 1604. And, therefore, according to the laws that govern human nature, such events were sure to tell an impressive tale to a man like Guy Fawkes. Princes and statesmen should avoid, as far as possible, inflicting punishments that impress the imagination. Moreover, an inferior but potent objection against all religious persecution is found in the wisdom enshrined in the exclamation of Horace, “O imitators, a servile crowd!”]

The following testimony of Father Oswald Tesimond, one of Guy Fawkes’ old school-fellows, along with John Wright and Christopher Wright, at Old St. Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, York, where Union Terrace now stands, will be of interest.

Fawkes was “a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, of mild and cheerful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a faithful friend, and remarkable for his punctual attendance upon religious observances.” His society was “sought by all the most distinguished in the Archdukes’ camp for nobility and virtue.”——Quoted by Jardine in his “_Narrative_,” p. 38.

How sad to think that such a man should have so missed his way in the journey of life as to become so demoralized as to join in the Gunpowder Treason Plot; nay, _in intention_, to be the most deadly agent in that Plot. What can have caused, in the final resort, such a missing of his way, and have wrought such dire demoralization? Echo answers what?

Yet nothing more clearly shows that Guy Fawkes deserved all the punishment he got than the fact that he returned to his post in the cellar, where the thirty-six barrels of gunpowder were, after no less than _three_ distinct warnings that the Government had intelligence of the Plot. One warning was given him on Monday, the 28th October, at White Webbs, by Thomas Winter; a second, on Sunday night, the 3rd November, by Thomas Winter, after the delivery of the Letter to the King; and the third, on Monday, the 4th November, after the visit to the cellar of the Earl of Suffolk and Lord Mounteagle, of which visit Fawkes informed Thomas Percy.——See Lingard’s “_History_.”

Copies of the three following Deeds given in Davies’ “_Fawkeses, of York_,” will be read with interest. One of the Deeds is an “Indenture of Lease;” the second, an “Indenture of Conveyance;” and the third, a “Deed Poll,” whereby Dennis and Edith Bainbridge release all right to Dower in Guy Fawkes’ real estate that he “heíred” from his own father, Edward Fawkes; all the property was outside Bootham Bar, in the suburbs of York.

In “_The Connoisseur_,” for November, 1901, is given a fac-simile of the “Conveyance.” Thomas Shepherd Noble, Esq., of Precentor’s Court, York, one of York’s most respected citizens, saw these Deeds sixty years ago in York, he informed me on the 5th of November, 1901; and Mr. Noble then told me he had no doubt that the fac-simile given in “_The Connoisseur_” of the “Conveyance” is a fac-simile of one of the documents he saw _more than half a century ago_.

The Pulleyns, Pulleines, Pulleins, or Pullens (for the family spelt their name in all four ways) bore for their Arms one and four azure, on a bend between six lozenges or, each charged with a scallop of the first, five scallops sable: two and three azure, a fess between three martlets.——See Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Ed. by Norcliffe.

Flower gives the Pulleyns, of Scotton, first, and then the Pulleyns, of Killinghall, near Harrogate.

Walter Pulleyn, the step-grandfather of Guy Fawkes, is given as a Pulleyn, of Scotton. Walter Pulleyn married for his first wife Frances Slingsby, of Scriven; for his second wife Frances Vavasour, of Weston, near Otley. One branch of the Vavasours, of Weston, settled at Newton Hall, Ripley, which, embosomed in trees, can be seen to-day by all those who drive from Harrogate,[A] through Killinghall and Ripley, on towards Ripon. Their son was William Pulleyn, who married Margaret Bellasis, of Henknoll; and _their_ son and heir was John Pulleyn, almost certainly the John Pulleyn, Esquire, of Scotton, given under the Parish of Farnham, in Peacock’s “_List of Roman Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604_.”

[Footnote A: How lovely is this drive from Harrogate to Ripon on a bright, balmy summer-morn! How amiable the fair sights and sounds that greet from all sides the traveller’s eye and ear! What historic memories well-up in the heart as Scotton Banks, on the right hand, and Ripley Valley, on the left, appear through charming sweet vistas never-to-be-forgotten!]

Flower’s “Pedigree” shows that the Pulleyns, of Scotton, had intermarried with the Ruddes, of Killinghall; the Roos, of Ingmanthorpe, near Wetherby; the Tankards, of Boroughbridge; the Swales, of Staveley; the Walworths, of Raventoftes, Bishop Thornton; the Coghylls, of Knaresbrough; and the Birnands, of Knaresbrough; one and all old Yorkshire Catholic gentry.

Flower also shows in his “Pedigree” of the Pulleyns, of Killinghall, that James Pulleyn, of Killinghall, married first Frances, daughter of Sir William Ingleby, of Ripley; and secondly Frances Pulleyn, daughter of Walter Pulleyn, of Scotton. They must have been cousins in some degree. Among _their_ numerous children were Joshua and William, both Roman Catholic priests.

The “_Douay Registers_” (David Nutt) show that Joshua Pulleyn was ordained priest in 1578. He returned to England on the 27th August of that year. He was educated at Cardinal Allen’s[A] College in Douay. His brother, William Pulleyn, was ordained in 1583, at the same time as the future martyr, “the Venerable” Francis Ingleby, afterwards the friend of “the Venerable” Margaret Clitherow, of York, and for harbouring whom, along with her spiritual director, Father John Mush, belike of Knaresbrough, Margaret Clitherow was indicted in the Guildhall, York, at the Lent Assizes of 1586.

[Footnote A: Cardinal Allen had been a lay canon of York Minster during the reign of Philip and Mary. He was a Lancashire man, being a native of Rossall, near Blackpool.]

In 1578 the College of Douay was transferred by Cardinal Allen to Rheims (or Reims), where it remained for twenty-one years, when it was transferred back to Douay. Fathers William Pulleyn and Francis Ingleby were educated at the College at Rheims (or Reims).——See “Order of Queen Elizabeth,” dated last day of December, 1582, in Appendix _postea_ where Reims is mentioned in connection with the popish missionary priests it was then sending forth into the City of York.[A]

[Footnote A: Miss Catharine Pullein, of the Manor House, Rotherfield, Sussex, courteously tells me in a most interesting letter, under date 13th May, 1901, that from the _inq. post mortem_ the above-named Walter Pulleyn died in 1580. That his son William, whose wife was a Bellasis, died before his father, so that in 1580 John Pulleyn (the one mentioned in Peacock’s “_List for 1604_”) was the young squire. In 1581 or 1582 John seems to have married. He suffered from the infliction of fines for popish recusancy, and appears to have left Scotton between 1604 and 1612. (Scotton Hall is to-day (1901), I believe, owned by the Rev. Charles Slingsby, M.A., of Scriven Hall, near Knaresbrough. The tenant is Mr. Thrackray.)]

There is a tradition to this day at Cowthorpe (or Coulthorpe, as it is pronounced by ancient inhabitants), near Wetherby, that Guy Fawkes was wont to visit that old-world village (until recently so quaint from its thatched farm-houses and cottars’ dwellings, and but little changed belike since the days of “Good Queen Bess”).

This tradition is certainly probably authentic; for a Roman Catholic family, named Walmsley, at that time lived at Cowthorpe Hall, a dignified “moated grange” between the Nidd and the historic “Cowthorpe Old Oak.” Guy Fawkes, possibly, many a time and oft, may have stabled his horse at the old Hall when, after fording at Hunsingore the shallow Nidd, he traversed the pleasant fields betwixt Cowthorpe and Ingmanthorpe, near Wetherby, where dwelt the family of Roos, who were, as above stated, allied by marriage to Guy’s friends, the Pulleyns, of Scotton.

Lastly; so intelligent a Yorkshire lad as was, beyond all doubt or cavil, the son of Edward Fawkes and Edith his wife——the lad whose manly but delicately-formed handwriting may be seen to-day by all who have the privilege of obtaining a sight of the precious document fac-similed in a well-known monthly periodical for November, 1901[A]——must have visited, I opine, Ribston Park, between Knaresbrough, Hunsingore, and Cowthorpe (where had been in mediæval times a celebrated Preceptory of the Knights Templars, the record of whose deeds against “the infidel Turk” may have fired Guy’s imagination from his earliest years). Moreover, Richard Goodricke, Esquire, of Ribston, had married Clara Norton, one of chivalrous, old Richard Norton’s daughters, of Norton Conyers; and this, to the popish youth, would be an additional attraction for going to view Ribston Hall, its chapel, park, and pale.[B]

[Footnote A: “_The Connoisseur._”]

[Footnote B: Richard Norton fled to Cavers House, Hawick, in the Border Country of Scotland, and afterwards to Flanders, where he died.——See “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter Scott.]

The Goodrickes derived the Ribston Estate (which included the Manor of Hunsingore and the Lordship of Great Cattal) from Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, William Parker fourth Lord Mounteagle’s great-great-grandfather. The Goodrickes were akin to the Hawkesworths, who again were akin to the Fawkeses, and likewise to the Wards (see _ante_). The Ribston branch of the Goodrickes died out early in the nineteenth century——Sir Harry Goodricke being the last baronet. The ancient Ribston, Hunsingore, and Great Cattal demesne is now owned by Major Dent, of Ribston Hall, near Knaresbrough.

From _“The Fawkes Family of York.”_

This Indenture made the fourtenth daye of October in the yere of the reigne of our Sovereigne Ladye Elizabeth, by the Grace of God Queen of England Fraunce and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. the xxxiijrd, Betwene Guye Fauxe of Scotton in the County of Yorke gentilman of the one partye, and Christofer Lomleye of the cittie of Yorke taylor, of the other partye, Witnessethe that the said Guy Fauxe, for divers good cawses and consideracions him thereunto speciallye moveinge, hath demysed graunted and to farme letten, and by theis presentes doth demyse graunt and to farme lett, unto the sayd Christofer Lomleye, one barne and one garth on the backside of the said barn, with the appertenaunces, scytuate lyeinge and beinge in Gilligaite in the suburbes of the said cittie of Yorke, and three acres and half of one acre of arrable lande, with the appertenaunces, in Clyfton in the said countie of Yorke, whereof halfe of one acre called a pitt lande, and one roode of lande lyinge at Newe-Close-gaite, are lyinge and beinge in the common field of Clyfton aforesaid towards Roclyffe, one half acre lyeth in the field called Mylnefeilde in Clyfton afforesaid, one rood lyinge in the flatt or field called Layres, one half acre called Layres in the Fosse-feild, one half acre called Hungrine lande, one half acre beyond the newe wynde mylne, and one half acre at the More-brottes, all whiche are lyinge and beynge in the feildes of Clyfton afforesaid; and also one acre of medowe lyinge and beynge in the ynges or medowe of Clyfton afforesaid, with all and singuler the appertenaunces in Clyfton aforesaid, nowe or laite in the tenure or occupacion of the saide Christofer or his assignes; to have and to holde the said barne, garth, three acres and half of one acre of arrable lande, and the sayd acre of medowe, and all other the premisses, with all and singuler the appertenaunces, in Gilligaite and Clyfton afforesaid, unto the sayd Christofer Lomley his executors and assignes, from the feast of St. Martyne the Bishop, comonlye called Martinmas daye, nexte ensewynge the daite hereof, for and dureinge the terme of twentye and one yeres from thence nexte and ymediatlye ensewinge and followinge fullye to be complett fynished and ended, yeldinge and payinge therfore yerelye dureinge the said terme unto the said Guye Fauxe his heires or assignes, fortie and two shillinges of lawfull Ynglish monie at the feastes of St. Martyne the Bishop in winter and Penteycost, or within ten dayes nexte after either of the sayd feastes, yf it be lawfully demaunded, by even and equall porcions. And the said Christofer Lomley, for him his executors and assignes, doth by theis presentes covenaunte and graunte to and with the said Guye Fauxe, that he the said Christofer Lomley his executors and assignes, at his and their proper costes and chardges shall well and sufficyentlye repaire maintayne and uphould the said barne at all tymes dureinge the said terme in all necessarie reparacions, greate tymber onely excepted, whiche the said Guye Fauxe, for him his heires and assignes, doth by theis presentes covenaunt and graunte to and with the said Christofer Lomley his executors and assigns, to delyver upon the ground at all tymes as often as neede shall require dureinge the said terme. And the said Guye Fauxe, for himself his heires executors and assignes, doth by theis presentes covenant and grante to and with the sayd Christofer Lomley, his executors and assignes, that he, the sayd Christofer Lomley, his executors and assignes, shall or lawfully maye at all tyme and tymes, and from tyme to tyme, dureynge the sayd terme of twentye and one yeres, peacablye occupie and quyetlie enjoye the said barne and all other the premisses and every parte and parcell thereof, with all and everie their appurtenaunces, without lett disturbance or interrupcion of any person or persons whatsoever. And that the sayd barne, and all other the premisses, with the appurtenaunces, at the daye of the daite hereof are, and dureynge the sayd term of twenty and one yeres shall and may continewe, clere and clerelie dischardged, or well and sufficyently saved harmeles, by the sayd Guye Fauxe his heires and assignes, of and from all former leases, grauntes, charges, incumbraunces, and demaundes whatsoever, the rentes by theis presentes reserved, and the covenauntes in theis presentes expressed on the behalf of the said Cristofer Lomley, to be observed and performed, onely excepted and foreprised. And the said Guye Fauxe and his heires all and singuler the premisses, with the appurtenances, before by theis presentes demysed to the sayd Cristofer Lomley his executors and assignes, dureigne the terme afforesayd, against all people rightfully claimynge shall warrante and defende by theis presentes. In witnes whereof, the partyes abovesaid to theis present Indentures have interchangeablie set to their handes and seales the daye and yere above written.

GUYE FAWKES. L.S.

Sealed and delivered, in the presence of us——DIONIS BAYNEBRIGGE——JOHN JACKSON——CHRISTOPHER HODGSON’S marke ×

This Indenture maide the firste daie of Auguste in the xxxiiijth yere of the reigne of our Soveraigne Ladie Elizabethe, by the grace of God Quewne of England Fraunce and Ireland, Defendour of the Faithe, &c. Betwene Guye Fawkes of the cittie of Yorke gentilman, of the one partye, and Anne Skipseye of Cliftone in the countie of Yorke, spinster, of the other partye Witnessithe that the said Guy Fawkes, for and in consideration of the sum of xxix^{li} xiij^{s} iiij^{d} of good and lawfull English moneye to him, the said Guye Fawkes, well and trewlie contentid and paid by the said Anne Skipseye, at and before the ensealinge of these presentes, whereof and wherewith the said Guye knowlegith him self to be fulie satisfied contentid and paid, and the said Anne Skipseye, hir heires executors administratores and assigneis, thereof to be fullie acquited and dischargdgid for ever by theis presentes, hath geven grauntid alliened bargained and sollde, and by these presentes dothe clerelie and absolutlye geve graunt allien bargaine and sell unto the said Anne Skipseye, hir heires and assigneis, that his messuage tenement or farme-hollde, with the appurtenaunces, and a garthe and a gardine belonginge to the same, lyeinge and beinge in Cliftone in the countie of York, and towe acres and an half of arrable lande liinge in severall feilldes in Clifton aforesaid, half an acre of medowe grounde liinge in a closse callid Huntingtone buttes, within the townshipp and territories of Cliftone aforesaid, one acre of medowe lyinge in Lufton Car, thre inges endes, and towe croftes or lees of medowe in a crofte adjoyninge on the garth endes in Cliftone aforesaid, of the easte parte of the said messuage; all which premissis are nowe in the tenure and occupation of the said Anne Skipsie; and also one acre of arable land and medowe liinge in the towne-end felld of Clifton aforesaid, nowe or late in the occupation of Richard Dickinsone; and all other his landes and tenementes in Clifton aforesaid, with all comons of pasture, more grownde, turffe graftes, and all and singuler the appurtenaunces to the same belonging or apperteyninge, in whose tenures or occupations soever they nowe be, excepte thre acres and an half of arable land with the appurtenaunces in Cliftone aforesaid, whereof half an acre callid a pitt land, and a roode of land liinge at Newe Close Gate, and being in the comon felld of Clifton aforesaid towardes Roclif, one half acre lyenge in the felld callid Milne felld, one rood lying in the flatt callid the Laires, and half acre callid Laires in Fosse filde, one acre callid a hungrie land, one half acre beyonde the newe windemill, one acre of land at the More Brottes; all which are lyinge and beinge in the felldes of Cliftone aforesaid; and also one acre of medow lyinge and beinge in the medowe or inges of Clifton, with theire appurtenaunces to the same perteyninge or belonginge, by the said Guye Fawkes heretofore demissid grauntid and to ferme letten for diverse yeres yett to come and unexpirid to one Cristofer Lumleye of the cittie of Yorke tailor, as shall appeare by one Indenture maid thereof betwene the said Guye Fawkes of the one partie, and the said Cristofer Lumleye of the other partie, bearinge date the xiiijth daie of October in the xxxiijrd yere of the said our Soveraigne Ladie the Quenes Majestie reigne more at lardge maie appeare; together with all the deedes evidences writinges, and escriptes, towchinge and concerninge the premissis with the appertenaunces, before by these presentes bargaind and solde by the said Guye Fawkes to the said Anne Skipsie, which the said Guye nowe hathe in custodie, or which any othere persone or persones have in their custodies to his use or by his deliverie, which the said Guye Fawkes maie lawfullie come by withowte suite in lawe: To have and to holld the said messuage cotage or farme-holld, and all and singuler the premissis, with the appurtenaunces, by these presentes before bargaind and solld (except before exceptid), with all and singuler the appurtenaunces to the same perteyninge and belonginge, in Cliftone, and the felldes of Cliftone aforesaid, together with all the said deedes, evidences, writinges, and escriptes, towchinge and concerninge the same, as is said, to the said Anne Skipseye her heires and assigneis, to the sole and proper use and behowfe of the said Anne Skipseye hir heires and assigneis for ever. And the said Guye Fawkes, for him his heires executores and administratores, doeth covenant and graunt by these presentes to and with the said Anne Skipseye, hir heires executores administratores and assigneis, that he the said Guye Fawkes, the daie of the makinge hereof, ys the verie and trewe owner of the said messuage tenement and farme-hold, with all and singuler the landes, medowes, pastures, comon of pasture, turbaries, with the same pertenyinge or belonginge in Cliftone, and within the felldes and territories of Clifton aforesaid, with other the appurtenaunces whatsoever to the same perteyninge or belonginge before bargaind and sold, and that he is lawfullie seassid thereof in his demesne as of fee in fee simple, and hath full power and lawfull authoritie to bargaine and sell the same unto the said Anne Skipeseye hir heires and assignes for ever. And also that the said messuage tenement or farme-holld, and other the premissis, with the appurtenances, before bargaind and sold, the daie of the makinge hereoff, and at all tymes hereafter, and from tyme to tyme, is and shall stand clerely acquittid and dischardgid, or otherwise savid harmeles, by the said Guye Fawkes, his heires, executores or assignes, of and from all former bargaines, sailles, joyntores, doweres, thirde parties, feoffamentes, statutes-marchant and of the staple, recognizances, writinges of eligit, condempnations, judgmentes, executions, fines, forfaiturs, intrusions for allienations, rentes-chardges, rentes-seke, and all othere chardges and incumberances whatsoever theye be, the rentes and services hereafter to be dewe to the cheife lord of the fee thereof onely exceptid. And also the said Guye Fawkes, for him his heires executores and assigneis, dothe further covenant and graunt to and with the said Anne Skipseye hir heires and assigneis, that Edeth the late wife of Edward Fawkes deceassid, mothere to the said Guye Fawkes, and now wife to Dionese Baynebridge gentillman, nor any other persone or persones whatsoever, which have, shall have, or shall clame any lawfull right or title in or to the premissis or any parte thereof, shall at any tyme hereafter moleste, interrupt, or trowble, the said Anne Skipseye hir heires or assigneis, of for and concerninge the premissis or any parte thereof, but that the said Anne Skipseye hir heires and assigneis shall and maie at all tyme peacablie and quietlie possess and enjoye the same and everie parte thereof, and that all and everie persone or persones whatsoever, which doe stand seazid of the premissis or any parte thereof, shall at all tymes, and from tyme to tyme, within five yeres next ensuinge the date hereof, upon the reasonable requeste and desire of the said Anne Skipseye hir heires administratores or assigneis, make, knowledge, sealle, and deliver, unto the said Anne Skipseye hir heires executores and assigneis, all such further assurance and assurances whatsoever as shall be devisid or advisid by the learnid councell in the lawes of this realme, beinge of the councell of the said Anne Skipseye, whether the same shalbe by dede or dedes inrollid, with warrantie against all men, inrollment of these present Indentures, fine with like warrantie, recoverie with vocher or vochers single or doble, release with warrantie against all men, or otherwise or by soo manye of them as shall be advisid or requirid by the said learnid councell of the said Anne, the cost and chardges whereof in lawe shalbe at thonelie cost and chardges of the said Anne Skipseye hir heires executores or assigneis. In witness whereof, the parties abovesaid unto these present Indentures interchangable have sett there handes and seall the daie and yere abovesaid.

GUYE FAWKES. L.S.

Seallid and delyverid in the presence of——GEORGE HOBSON——WILLIAM MASKEWE——LANCELOT BELT——THOMAS HESLEBECKE——CHRYSTOFER LUMLEYE——IHON LAMB marke ×——JOHN HARRISON——JOHN CALV’LEY.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos hoc presens scriptum pervenerit Dionisius Baynbrige de Scotton in comitatu Ebor’ generosus et Edetha uxor ejus salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noveritis nos prefatum Dionisium Baynbrige et Edetham remississe, relaxasse ac omnino de et pro nobis et heredibus nostris per presentes inperpetuum quietum clamasse Anne Skipseye de Cliftone in dicto comitatu Ebor’ spynster in sua plena pacificaque possessione et seisina die confectionis presentium existenti heredibus et assignatis suis, totum jus, statum, titulum, clameum, usum, interesse et demaunda nostra quecunque que vel quas unquam habuimus, habemus, seu quovismodo infuturum habere poterimus seu deberimus de et in uno cotagio sive tenemento cum una clausura vocata A Grisgarthe et duobus croftis vel selionibus cum suis pertinentiis in Cliftone predicto in comitatu Ebor’ predicto ac de et in una roda terræ arrabilis jacentis in Favild-nooke in campis de Cliftone, inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte occidente et terram Leonarid Weddell ex parte oriente, dimidia acra terræ jacente in les Sokers inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte australi et terram Thome Hill ex parte boriali, una roda terræ jacente in Longwandilles inter terram Thome Hill ex parte boriali et terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte australi et Thome Hill ex parte boriali, dimidia acra terræ jacente inter regias vias ibidem inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte australi et Thome Hill ex parte boriali, dimidia acra terræ jacente in lez shorte layeres inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte boriali et terram nuper Rogeri Browne ex parte australi, dimidia acra jacente in Huntington buttes inter terram Johannis Bilbowe ex parte occidente et terram Roberti Walker ex parte orientali, una acra terræ jacente in Lupstone Carre in le Northfelld sive campo juxta Roclif inter terram nuper Roberti Wright ex parte australi et le moore dike ex parte boriali, et tribus dimidiis acris prati jacentibus in fine prati vocati ynge endes quarum una dimidia acra jacet inter pratum Edwardi Turner ex parte boriali et Thome Burtone ex parte australi, alia dimidia acra inde jacet ex parte australi Leonardi Weddell, et tertia dimidia acra inde jacet inter Thomam Hill ex parte boriali et Henricum Granger ex parte australi, cum omnibus et singulis suis pertinentiis in Cliftone et in campis de Cliftone predicto modo in tenura sive occupatione prefate Anne Skipseye, ac etiam de et in una acra terræ et prati jacente in le Towne-end felld de Cliftone predicto modo vel nuper in occupatione Ricardi Dickensone, necnon de et in omnibus aliis terris et tenementis in Clifton predicto que nuper fuerunt Guidonis Fawkes generosi (tribus acris et dimidia acra terræ cum pertinentiis in campis de Cliftone predicto et una acra prati in prato vocato le ynges de Cliftone modo in tenura Cristoferi Lumleye, tantum modo exceptis per presentes), ita viz. quod nec nos prefati Dionisius Bainbrige et Edetha aut nostrum uterlibet nec heredes nostri nec aliquis alius sive aliqui alii pro nobis seu nominibus nostris aut nomine nostrum alterius aliquod jus, statum, titulum, clameum, usum, interesse vel demandum de et in predicto cotagio sive tenemento cum clausura predicta, et de predictis duobus croftis vel selionibus, aut de et in predictis premissis cum pertinentiis in Clifton et campis de Cliftone predicto ut prefertur, seu de et in aliqua inde parte sive parcellis (exceptis prius exceptis) decetero exigere, petere, clamare vel vendicare, poterimus nec debemus in futuro, sed ut ab omni actione, jure, titulis, clameo, usu, interesse, vel demando aliquid inde habendi sive petendi sumus penitus exclusi et quilibet nostrum sit inde penitus exclusus in perpetuum per presentes. Et nos vero prefati Dionisius Baynbrige et Edetha et haredes nostri predicta omnia premissa cum suis pertinentiis universis ut prefertur (exceptis prius exceptis) prefate Anne Skipseye heredibus et assignatis suis in forma predicta contra nos et heredes nostros warrantizabimus et imperpetuum defendemus per presentes. In cujus rei testimonium nos prefati Dionisius Baynbrige et Edetha huic presenti scripto nostro sigilla nostra apposuimus. Datum xxi^{mo} die mensis Octobris, anno regni domine Elizabethe Dei gratia Anglie, Frauncie, et Hibernie Regine, fidei defensoris &c. tricesimo quarto.

DIONIS BAYNEBRIGGE (L.S.)——E.B. (L.S.) Seallid and delyverid in the presence of——GUYE FAWKES——WILLIAM GRANGE——JAMES RYDING.

SUPPLEMENTUM II.

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VI.

[Dr. Bilson] Bishop of Worcester to Sir Robert Cecil.

1596, July 17. I have viewed the state of Worcester diocese, and find it, as may somewhat appear by the particulars here enclosed, for the quantity, as dangerous as any place that I know. In that small circuit there are nine score[A] recusants of note, besides retainers, wanderers, and secret lurkers, dispersed in forty several parishes, and six score and ten households, whereof about forty are families of gentlemen, that themselves or their wives refrain the church, and many of them not only of good wealth, but of great alliance, as the Windsors, Talbots, Throgmortens, Abingtons, and others, and in either respect, if they may have their forth, able to prevail much with the simpler sort.

[Footnote A: This letter will be read with interest, as affording independent testimony to the strength of Popery in the County of Worcester during the period of Father Oldcorne’s labours.]

Besides, Warwick[B] and the parts thereabout are freighted with a number of men precisely conceited against her Majesty’s government ecclesiastical, and they trouble the people as much with their curiosity as the other with their obstinacy.

[Footnote B: This is interesting as showing that in the native county of Shakespeare, Puritanism was gaining strength in 1596, probably through the influence of the Earl of Leicester, Sir Thomas Lucy (of Charlcote), and Sir Fulke Grevyll, as well as others.]

How weak ordinary authority is to do any good on either sort long experience hath taught me, excommunication being the only bridle the law yieldeth to a bishop, and either side utterly despising that course of correction, as men that gladly, and of their own accord, refuse the communion of the church, both in sacraments and prayers.

In respect therefore of the number and danger of those divers humours both denying obedience to her Majesty’s proceedings, if it please her Highness to trust me and others in that shire with the commission ecclesiastical,[A] as in other places of like importance is used, I will do my endeavour to serve God and her Majesty in that diocese to the uttermost of my power.

[Footnote A: Under the provisions of the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity.]

First, by viewing their qualities, retinues, abilities, and dispositions; next, by drawing them to private and often conference, lest ignorance make them perversely devout; thirdly, by restraining them from receiving, succouring, or maintaining any wanderers or servitors that feed their humours; and, lastly, by certifying what effects or defects I find to be the cause of so many revolting.

Her Majesty hath trusted me fifteen years since to be of the _quorum_ on the commission ecclesiastical in Hampshire, and therefore age and experience growing, as also my care and charge increasing, I hope I shall not need to produce any further motives to induce her Majesty’s favour therein, but the profession of my duty and promise of my best service with all diligence and discretion, which I hope shall turn to her content and good of her people.

With which my most humble petition, if it please you to acquaint her Majesty; I will render you all due thanks, and make what speed I may towards the place where I long to be and wish to labour to the pleasure of Almighty God and good liking of her Majesty.

London 17 July 1596.

Signed

Encloses:——

The names and qualities of the wealthier sort of Recusants in Worcester diocese:——

The Lady Windsor, with her retinue. M^{r} Talbot. Thomas Abington Esq. and Dorothy, his sister. Thomas Throgmorton, Esq. John Wheeler gent. and Elizabeth his wife. Thomas Bluntt gent. and Bridgett, his wife. John Smyth gent. Thomas Greene, gent. Hugh Ligon gent., and Barbara, his wife. Michael Folliatt, gent., and Margaret, his wife. William Coles gent., and Marie, his wife. M^{r} Bluntt, gent. of Hallow. Hugh Day gent. and Margaret, his wife. Lygon Barton, gent. John Taylor, gent., and Ann, his wife. John Midlemore, gent., Hugh Throgmorton gent. Humphrey Packington, gent. John Woolmer gent. of Inkbarrow. Rowse Woolmer, gent. John Woolmer gent. of Kingston. M^{r} Busshop gent. of Oldbarrow.

[Total]——23.

The names of the gentlewomen that refuse the church, though their husbands do not.

Margaret, wife of Roger Pen gent. Jane wife of John Midlemore. Alice wife of John Hornyhold gent. Margaret wife of William Rigby gent. Mary wife of Thomas Sheldon gent. Dorothy wife of Thomas Rauckford gent. Ann wife of William Fox gent. Joan, wife of Thomas Barber gent. Prudence wife of Thomas Oldnall gent. Frances wife of John Jeffreys gent. Elizabeth wife of Thomas Randall gent. Mary wife of William Woolmer gent. Elizabeth Ferreys widow. Jane Sheldon widow. Katherine Sparks of Hinlipp. Dorothy Woolmer. Jane Mary Eleanor daughters of Anthony Woolmer gent.

Of the meaner sort:——

Fourscore and ten several households where the man or wife or both are recusants, besides children and servants.

SUPPLEMENTUM III.

THOMAS WARD.

It is probable that diligent search among the Cecil and Walsingham papers will shed more light on Thomas Ward (or Warde) than I have been able hitherto to gain.

The probabilities are, as has been already indicated, that Thomas Ward was a younger son of Marmaduke Ward, of Newby, and Susannay, his wife. That Marmaduke Ward’s elder son was Marmaduke Ward (who married Ursula Wright, and afterwards, in all likelihood, Elizabeth Sympson), the father of that extraordinary woman, Mary Ward.

I opine that Thomas Ward attached himself to the Court party of Queen Elizabeth, through the Council of the North, established by Henry VIII. after the defeat of the first Pilgrimage of Grace (1536).

Thomas Ward was just the sort of man (_me judice_) that Queen Elizabeth would affect. Moreover, I find that a Captain John Ward was on the side of the Crown on the occasion of the second Pilgrimage of Grace, commonly called the Rising of the North, or the Earls’ Rebellion (1569).

Therefore, through the influence of a man like Sir Ralph Sadler, who was a distinguished Privy Councillor of the Queen in the northern parts, a Yorkshire gentleman, such as a Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, would have no difficulty in obtaining an _entrée_ at Elizabeth’s Court, who, as is well known, was, from a certain English conservative instinct probably, favourably inclined to those Catholics whose leaning was towards the easy side of things.[A]

[Footnote A: See “_Sir Ralph Sadler’s Papers_,” Ed. by Sir Walter Scott. It is observable that although the Nortons and the Markenfields were for the Earls, yet members of the following Yorkshire Catholic Families (many of them kinsmen of the Wards) were for the Queen, who was not then excommunicated:——The Eures, the Mallories, the Inglebies, the Constables, the Tempests, the Fairfaxes, the Cholmeleys, the Ellerkers, and the Wilstroppes.

For these Families and their alliances see the “_Visitations of Yorkshire_,” by Glover, Ed. by Foster; and by Flower, Ed. by Norcliffe. Also “_Dugdale_” (Surtees).]

Now, if Thomas Ward became a member of Elizabeth’s diplomatic service under Sir Francis Walsingham, the inevitable question arises: Can Thomas Ward (or Warde) have always maintained a conscience void of offence, or did he sometimes stoop to compliances which were unworthy of his principles and name?

At present I cannot say, yet I am constrained to allow that the following two pieces of evidence afford curious reading and suggest many possibilities:——

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VI., p. 96.

Thomas Morgan to Mary Queen of Scots.

1585, Mar. 30./Ap. 9. Informs her of his apprehension at the request of the Earl of Derby. Mr. Ward’s negotiation to procure his being delivered up into England. Requires her support. Lord Paget’s money taken in his (Morgan’s) lodging. Efforts of Charles Paget and Thomas Throgmorton in his behalf.

[It is to be recollected that this said Thomas Morgan was a Catholic of a sort, who had been in the service of Archbishop Young, of York. Hence, a Ward, of Ripon and York, was the very man the subtle Walsingham would employ to negotiate a delicate matter requiring an accurate knowledge of Morgan’s intellectual and moral characteristics; for Ward most likely had known Morgan at York.]

* * * * *

Thirteen years later we find the name “Ward” again in the “_Hatfield MSS._”

HATFIELD MSS.——Part VIII., p. 295.

1598 Aug. 4. Steven Rodwey to secretary Cecil for permission to go to Italy to go over to accompany M^{r} Paget into Italy.

“The disgrace with your Honour I suspect to proceed, either of Lord Cobham’s disfavour at another man’s suit, which I have not deserved; or by the suggestion of _Ward_ M^{r} Paget’s, solicitor, because I refused to carry his[A] letters that was so lately “jested” with high treason, and might father all the faults I am charged with.”

[Footnote A: Whose letters? Paget’s or Ward’s?]

[Who or what Mr. Steven Rodwey was, one can only surmise. Possibly he was a spy, who had been doing more business on his own account than on account of his master. Hence, his disgrace with “his Honour.”

Charles Paget, a younger brother of Lord Paget, and his friend, Thomas Morgan, figure in all histories of Mary Queen of Scots; also in “_Cardinal Allen’s Memorials_,” Ed. by the late Dr. Knox (Nutt), there are some interesting particulars about these two men, Charles Paget and Thomas Morgan. They were hostile to Father Parsons and Parsons’ Spanish faction among the English papists.]

But here, for the present, we must take our leave of Thomas Ward, excepting to say that it is possible that he may be the same as the Thomas Ward (or Warde) who is mentioned several times in the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_,” as his agent for the Howard-Dacre, Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland estates.[A]——See Note to p. 231 _ante_.

[Footnote A: The Rev. A. S. Brooke, M.A., the Rector of Slingsby, informs me that his parish registers begin only in 1687. The late Captain Ward, R.N., of Slingsby Hall, who lies in Slingsby Churchyard, perhaps may have had some family tradition bearing on the point. It is certainly remarkable that there should have been Wards, Rectors of Slingsby, from the time of James I., and long afterwards. It suggests that Thomas Ward, the agent of Lord William Howard, may have either married again after 1590, and had a family; or else that some of the Wards, of Durham, or others that had conformed to the Established Church received this ecclesiastical preferment at the instance of Thomas Ward. Valentine Kitchingman, Esquire, the grandson of Captain Ward, and owner of Slingsby Hall, has, however, no such tradition. (I am told through the Rector of Slingsby, September, 1901.)]

The Right Honourable Charles James Howard ninth Earl of Carlisle, in the course of two most gracious replies to letters of mine, informs me that, although he has caused search to be made at Naworth and Castle Howard, he has not been able to find any particulars concerning Thomas Ward (or Warde) beyond what are mentioned in the “_Household Books of Lord William Howard_” (Surtees Soc.); and that probably, owing to the fire at Hinderskelfe Castle, after the time of Thomas Ward, letters or papers containing possible reference to him may have been destroyed.

Lastly; I beg to bring before my readers the following document from the Record Office, which makes mention of the name Ward; but whether or not that of Thomas Ward, of Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, I cannot say:——

STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC——ELIZ., Vol. ccxxxviii., 126 I. A. D. 1591.

Obiections against one Fletcher vicar of Clarkenwell for the permission of these maters followinge

Fyrst at conveniente tymes of receivinge the holye communion at which time he is to give warninge to all his parishioners for his privat comoditye he excepteth sume particuler persones whose names are under written and of them taketh money.

M^{r} Wardes[A] Two daughters.

M^{r} Gerrat his wiffe a watinge mayde called M^{ris} Marye and a man called Anthenie recevinge of him for theire absence divers somes of money and in my knowledge at Easter was Twoo yeares the some of xx^{s} in goulde.

M^{r} Saunders and his Two Sonnes certen unknowne money.

Besides M^{ris} Gerrat being delivered of a doughter aboute Twoe yeares since he did forbeare to cristen yt beinge bribed with a peece of money ye Chillde being Cristned in the house, by a priest and she churched by th’ afforsaide preist being knowne to this Fletcher.

[Footnote A: What Mr. Warde can this have been? Not Thomas Ward (or Warde), of Mulwith, I think. For the presumption is that he had no children, for none are registered at Ripon Minster; and Thomas Ward was more likely to have his children christened by a Protestant minister than was his brother, Marmaduke; for the former evidently associated with Protestants much more than the latter. Moreover, in 1591 any daughters that Thomas Warde had can have been only about nine or ten years of age. His wife died the previous year, 1590. (Still it may have been.)]

* * * * *

Norris and Watson persevantes have been divers times latly in ye closse and Norris hath receved in ye way of borrowinge of sume V^{s} of others more. But Watson by vertue of a comission from my L. of Cant. hath latly serched Gerates house and M^{r} Wardes where he found nothinge at all they being partly privie before of his cominge. But in M^{r} Wardes house theire did latly remayne hidden under ye higest place of ye stares within a nayled boarde divers bookes [not specified] pictures and other folishe serimonyes.

Orders amungst ye papistes for ye releyse aswell of prisoners as of ye porer sorte at libertye.

Yt is an order amungst ye papistes for ye releyse of prisoners aswell Jesuytes as Laymen that there be a generall colleccion which beginneth at ye L. Mountegue and so by degree to ye meaner sorte for ye maytenance of three prisones in London, viz. the Klinke, the Marshallseas and Newgate which cesseth not tyll ye some of a hundred and ffyftye poundes be gathered quarterly which somme is sente by some trustye messinger to London where yt is comitted to dyvers mens handes apoynted by the cheyfe and from them to ye foresayde prysones.

Yt is further ordered for ye porer sorte of them beinge at libertie to have theire dyett at several houses kepinge certen dayes for theyre repayre to evereye house with certen money allowed to everye one at ye wekes end And yf any recusante dye a piece of money is bequeathed to ye porest sorte to saye dirge for theire sowles for a xii moneth to be payde weklye both to men and women tyll this money be spente And thus they lyve untyll ye lyke comoditye fall agayne.

per me Robartum Weston. (Endorsed) 20 April. Robert Weston.

[On p. 76 of Text, in Note 1 at foot of page, it is stated that the first Lord Mounteagle’s mother was Lady Eleanor Neville, sister to Richard Neville, the King-maker. But I find that, under “Stanley,” in Flower’s “_Visitation of Yorkshire_,” Ed. by Norcliffe (Harleian Soc.), _the great grandfather_ of Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle, namely, Thomas Lord Stanley, is said to have married Eleanor, daughter to Richard Nevell Earl of Salisbury. _Their_ son is given as George Lord Stanley; _his_ son as Thomas Stanley first Earl of Derby; and _his_ son as Edward Stanley first Lord Mounteagle, who married Elizabeth Lady Grey, daughter of Sir Thomas Vaughan, and whose son was Thomas second Lord Mounteagle.

But the “_National Dictionary of Biography_” (under “Stanley Earl of Derby”) says that Eleanor Countess of Derby (_née_ Neville) was the _daughter_ of Warwick, the King-maker. So the “learned” must be left to determine the truth upon the point.

Again; on p. 160 of Text, in Note at foot of page, I have stated that the young Lord Vaux of Harrowden was a descendant of Sir Thomas More.

But I find that that strong-minded lady his mother, Elizabeth Dowager Lady Vaux of Harrowden, was _only distantly connected_ with Sir Thomas More. For she was descended from _Christopher_ Roper, a younger brother of William Roper, who married Margaret More.

Hence, Christopher Roper is the ancestor of the Lords Teynham, of Kent, who, I believe, conformed to the Established Church after “1715,” as did many old English papist families.]

SUPPLEMENTUM IV.

AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GIVENDALE, NEWBY, AND MULWITH, ANCIENTLY IN THE CHAPELRY OF SKELTON, IN THE PARISH OF RIPON, IN THE WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK.

On Sunday, the 22nd day of April, 1901, it fell out that the writer found himself sojourning in the good City of Ripon; a city which a few years ago, calling its friends and neighbours together, kept, amid high festival, the one thousandth anniversary of its own foundation: at Ripon, around the time-honoured towers of whose hallowed Minster abidingly cling memories, strong and gracious, of canonized Saints and beloved Apostles.[A]

[Footnote A: St. Wilfrid, Archbishop of York and Apostle of Sussex (634-709) and his friend St. Willibrord, Archbishop of Utrecht and Apostle of Holland.]

“Hail, smiling morn!” I exclaimed, on seeing at an early hour the bright sunshine stream through my chamber windows. On this day of rest and gladness will I hie me to the sites of the ancient roof-trees of those whose graves, parted by long distances of space and time, are known to-day, for the most part, no longer to Man, but to Nature merely.

Not to you and to me, gentle reader, are those graves to-day known (save with one exception), but to the verdant grass, the crimson-tipped daisy, the golden celandine, who are pre-eminently faithful watchers by the dead. For steadfastly will _they_ remain watching until the daybreak of an endless day.[A]

[Footnote A: This exception is the grave of Mary Ward, the daughter, it will be remembered, of Marmaduke Ward and Ursula Wright, and, consequently, the niece of Christopher Wright and, I maintain, of Thomas Ward, the guide, philosopher, and friend of Lord Mounteagle. Mary Ward died at the old Manor House, Heworth, on the 20th January, 1645-46, and is buried at Osbaldwick, near York, where a stone, bearing a simple but touching inscription, is still to be seen by an increasing number of her admirers, Protestant and Catholic, the former of whom have ever styled her “that good lady, Mary Ward.” The inscription on the gravestone bears out this view of this great-hearted, truly human, English gentlewoman. It runs thus: “To love the poore, persever in the same and live, dy, and rise with them was all the ayme of Mary Ward, who, having lived 60 years and 8 days, dyed the 20 of Jan., 1645.” That gravestone might also fittingly bear a second inscription, consisting of those triumphant words of victory over death: “_Credo_; _Spero_; _Amo_” (“I believe; I hope; I love”). The Rev. F. Umpleby, the Vicar of Osbaldwick, and his churchwardens guard the gravestone of Mary Ward with the most commendable care.]

Having duly paid my orisons to heaven in the ancient manner, and having broken my fast with such fare as my place of sojourning bestowed, I set out upon my quest.

I set forth alone, yet not alone; for mine was the companionship of lively historical ideas. But as soon as I had journeyed about one mile to the south-east of Ripon, I perforce came to a halt. For my footsteps, on a sudden, had been arrested by the ear being struck with that most musical of natural sounds——the sound of living, gurgling, murmuring waters.

I hearkened again, being infinitely pleasured by such natural music. And, mending my pace somewhat, soon found myself at Bridge Hewick, looking down from the parapet of the old grey bridge upon the rushing, boulder-broken, glancing waters of the Ure, which, after gladdening fruitful Wensleydale, flows through Ripon; and after skirting Givendale and Newby, and laving “the green fields of England,” in front of Mulwith, hurries on towards Boroughbridge; thence to Myton, where, by the junction of the Ure and Swale, the Ouse[A] is formed, that majestic flood, which, with broad swelling tide, flows past the towers of York, the far-famed Imperial City, whose only peer in the western world is Rome.

[Footnote A: The winding Nidd, known to St. Wilfrid and dear to St. Robert, pours itself into the Ouse at Nun Monkton, a few miles above York, and not far from historic Marston Moor.]

I say I set out upon my quest for Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith alone, yet not alone; because I had the companionship of lively historical ideas.

Thus much is true. And more: for romantic fancy conjured up visions before my mental gaze during that sunny Rest-Day morning,

“When all the secret of the spring Moved in the chambers of the blood,”[B]

[Footnote B: Tennyson’s “In Memoriam.”]

as I traversed those fair budding country-lanes, “made vocal by the song” of a thousand warbling birds, and paradisaical

“With violets dim, But sweeter than the lids of Juno’s eyes Or Cytherea’s breath; pale primroses That die unmarried, ere they can behold Bright Phœbus in his strength.”[C]

[Footnote C: Shakespeare’s “Winter’s Tale.”——Shakespeare may have possibly known, or at least heard of, Father John Gerard, S.J., the life-long friend of Mary Ward, and the first “to English” Lorenzo Scupoli’s “_Spiritual Combat_.” Any educated Buddhist or Mohammedan British subject who wishes to understand the genius of Christianity should carefully study the “_Spiritual Combat_.” It will repay his pains.

Francis Arden, who was in the Tower of London, escaped from that prison along with Gerard during the night of 8th October, 1597. Francis Arden was probably a relative of Edward Arden, who was executed as a traitor on the 23rd December, 1583, in connection with the mysterious Somerville-Arden-Hall conspiracy against the life of Queen Elizabeth. The Shakespeares were justly proud of their connection with the Ardens, a fact which is evidenced by the well-known application of John Shakespeare (the poet’s father) to the College of Heralds for the grant of a coat-of-arms that impaled and quartered the arms of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, his wife’s family. I cannot doubt that the Ardens, of Wilmcote, Warwickshire, were of the same clan as the Ardens, of Park Hall, Warwickshire, to which family Edward Arden belonged, who was executed in 1583. To disallow the relationship of the Ardens, of Wilmcote, with the Ardens, of Park Hall (both in Warwickshire), simply because the former were less liberally endowed with worldly goods in the reign of Elizabeth than the latter, proves to demonstration that such disallowers, merely on such ground, have something yet to learn respecting the England of “Good Queen Bess”——and of every other England too.]

Yea, before my mind’s eye I seemed to behold, ever and anon, riding towards and passing me on horseback, to and fro, from east to west, and from west to east, the shadowy yet tall stately forms of Elizabethan gentlemen, in feathered hat, girded sword, and Ripon spurs; aye, and of Elizabethan gentlewomen likewise, in hooded cloak, white ruff, and pleated gown.

Sometimes the groups, methought, were accompanied by one showing a graver mien and more reverend aspect than the gentlefolk among whom he rode, although apparelled and equipped externally as they. The breviary, crucifix, and large jet rosary-beads which, in my phantasy, lay concealed within the last-named’s breast, would betoken that he was a priest of the ancient faith of the English people, although at that period one of such a vocation was, by law, counted a traitor to his sovereign.

But my day-dreams vanished: from a vivid realization of a near approach to Givendale, which was announced by a new guide-post visible to the eye of flesh. A few paces further of walking, under the boughs of noble interlacing trees, brought me by the gate leading to the dwelling-house to-day known as Givendale——that historic name. The old hall occupied a site most probably a little to the north of the present Givendale, and was surrounded by a moat. Leland, writing in the reign of Henry VIII., describes it as “a fair manor place of stone.” Lovely views does Givendale command of the valley of the Ure,[A] looking westward towards the sister valleys of the Nidd and Wharfe and Aire.

[Footnote A: Givendale, in the time of Sir Simon Ward, who lived in the reign of Edward II., was evidently the Wards’ principal seat near Ripon; for Sir Simon Ward is described as of “Givendale and Esholt.” Esholt is in the Parish of Otley. The arms of the Wards were azure, a cross patonce, or. Sir Simon Ward’s daughter, Beatrice, was married to Walter de Hawkesworth, and, through her, the Hawkesworth estate, in the Parish of Otley, between Wharfedale and Airedale, came into the ancient family of Hawkesworth (see Text _ante_). To-day, the well-known Fawkes family, of Farnley (the friends of the artist, Turner, and of his great interpreter, Ruskin), own Hawkesworth Hall, a fine, ivy-clad, antique mansion looking towards Airedale. Campion was probably harboured here in the spring of 1581, and possibly also by the Hawkesworths, of Mitton, near Clitheroe.]

A kind wayfarer, whom I chanced to meet near Givendale, pointed out to me the way to Skelton, Newby, and Mulwith.

I had to retrace from Givendale my steps for Skelton; but I soon found from a second friendly guide-post that my good friend of a few moments before had directed my eager steps aright.

The faithful following towards the south-east of the high road, running parallel with the woods of Newby on my right, brought me in due course to Skelton, a large limestone village, characteristic of that part of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

I walked down the town street of Skelton and found that the Park-gates of Newby entered from the village.

I passed, on my left, the little chapel of Skelton, standing in its grave-yard, which, rebuilt in 1812, had taken the place of the chapel where once or twice a year, “after long imprisonment,” it is probable that Marmaduke Ward——though not Elizabeth, his wife, nor Mary, nor any of his other children——“against his conscience” went to hear read the Book of Common Prayer, in order to avoid the terrible penalty of having “to pay the statute,” that is, to pay £20 per lunar month by way of fine for “popish recusancy.”[A]

[Footnote A: This would be about £160 in our money. Thirteen of these payments in one year would amount to about £2,080. Father Richard Holtby, S.J., was a friend of the Wards, and the priest who decided Mary Ward’s “vocation” in Baldwin’s Gardens, Holborn, London, after Marmaduke Ward had been released from his brief captivity in Warwickshire. (See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., p. 89.) Holtby speaks of Mary as “my daughter Warde.” Now, Father Holtby, of Fryton, near Hovingham, has recorded that “after long imprisonment Mr. Blenkinsopp [of Helbeck, Westmoreland, no doubt], _Mr. Warde_, Mr. Trollope [of Thornley, in the County of Durham, no doubt], and Mrs. Cholmondeley [probably of Brandsby, near Easingwold], and more” were “overthrown,” which clearly means became (temporarily at least) “Schismatic Catholics,” by consenting to attend “the Protestant church.” (See Morris’s “_Troubles_,” third series, p. 76.) This would be in the years 1593-94-95, or previously. Peacock’s “_List_” for 1604, under “Ripon,” gives “Elizabeth wief of Marmaduke Ward,” _but ominously no_ Marmaduke Ward. Therefore, like his relative Sir William Wigmore, Marmaduke Ward, it is almost certain, for a time frequented his parish church (contrary to what he deemed “the highest and best”) perhaps once or twice a year. Poor fellow! he was, however, very strict in not allowing his children to do the like. (See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vol. i., pp. 30, 31.)]

The Newby Hall of to-day, the seat of R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire, is a grand structure, having been designed by Sir Christopher Wren about the year 1705. In the Park is the beautiful Memorial Church, built by the late Lady Mary Vyner, in memory of her son, Frederick George Vyner, who was slain by Greek brigands in the year 1870.[B]

[Footnote B: The late Dr. Stanley delivered, in Westminster Abbey, one of his beautiful and pathetic “Laments,” after the sorrowful tidings reached England that this fine young Englishman, by a deed of violence, had passed into the world of the “Unseen Perfectness.”]

One mile from Newby is Mulwith.[A] It is reached by what evidently has been an avenue in days of yore, connecting the two manor-houses.

[Footnote A: R. C. De Grey Vyner, Esquire (brother-in-law to the Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., of Studley Royal, Lord Lieutenant of the North Riding of Yorkshire), to-day owns Givendale, Newby, and Mulwith. They are within about five miles of Ripon, and can be also reached from Boroughbridge.]

The old hall of Mulwith was most probably a castellated mansion, quadrangular in shape, with a Gothic chapel, gateway, drawbridge, and moat, pretty much like Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, at the present day. There was a fire at Mulwith in the year 1593, we know from the “_Life of Mary Ward_.” And it may be, that the hall was then razed to the ground and never afterwards rebuilt.[B]

[Footnote B: Mary Ward was born at Mulwith, in 1585 (see _ante_, p. 59). Among her devoted scholars, who crossed the seas either with her or to her, were Susanna Rookwood, Helena Catesby, and Elizabeth Keyes, each respectively related, closely related, to the conspirators bearing those names.——See “_Life of Mary Ward_,” vols. i. and ii.]

To-day Mulwith is a pleasant farmstead, built of brick with slated roof. It is a two-storied, six-windowed dwelling, with homestead, gardens, and orchards all adjoining.[C]

[Footnote C: My friend Mr. Renfric Oates, of Maidenhead, Berks., kindly made me, when in Harrogate (in May, 1901), a sketch of Mulwith, which I value highly. Since then a relative of his has bestowed upon me a portrait of Mary Ward herself. So I am fortunate indeed. In the “_Life of Mary Ward_,” by M. Mary Salome (Burns & Oates), the lady who so generously gifted me with a picture I can scarcely prize enough, there is a copy from the first of that remarkable series of paintings known as the Painted Life of Mary Ward, which represents Mary (then a little maiden betwixt two and three years old) toddling across the room, attired, as to her head, in a tiny close-fitting cap. This picture bears the following note in ancient German:——“‘Jesus’ was the first word of the infant, Mary, after which she did not speak for many months.” Another of the famous pictures in the Painted Life is one representing Mary, at the age of thirteen, making her first Communion, at Harewell Hall, Dacre, Nidderdale. (I visited Harewell Hall, which is still owned by the Inglebies, of Ripley, as in the days of Mary Ward, on Wednesday, the 10th April, 1901, being courteously shown round the Hall by Miss Simpson, the tenant. The River Nidd flows at the foot of this ancient, picturesque dwelling.)]

In front of Mulwith still flows, as in the ancient days, the historic waters of the Ure.[A] On almost every side the eye is gladdened with woodland patches embroidering the horizon with that “sylvan scenery which never palls.”[B]

[Footnote A: Near Newby, in February, 1869, Sir Charles Slingsby, Bart., of Scriven, when a-hunting was, with some other gentlemen, drowned in the act of crossing in a boat the River Ure, then swollen high through February floods. The event cast a profound gloom over Yorkshire for many a long day. (The writer was eight years of age when this melancholy catastrophe took place, and well does he remember the grief depicted on the faces of the good citizens of York on the morrow of that sad disaster.)]

[Footnote B: Lord Beaconsfield.]

Hence, at last I was come to my journey’s end. For I had reached Mulwith, or Mulwaith, in the Parish of Ripon, whereof “Thomas Warde” is described, who married M’gery Slater, in the Church of St. Michael-le-Belfrey, York, on the 29th day of May, 1579.

Mrs. John Hardcastle and her son most kindly conducted me round the place once more; for I had visited Mulwith about ten years previously, with my sister, then approaching it from the east.

And on that Sunday evening (April 22nd, 1901), an evening calm and bright, to the sound of sweet church bells, again I satisfied historic feeling by the recollection of the Past; the sense whereof bore down upon me with a force too strong for words, “too deep,” too high, “for tears.”

“_Many waters cannot quench Love; neither can the floods drown it._”

SUPPLEMENTUM V.

AN ACCOUNT OF A VISIT TO GREAT PLOWLAND (ANCIENTLY PLEWLAND), IN THE PARISH OF WELWICK, HOLDERNESS, IN THE EAST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK.

On Monday, the 6th day of May, 1901, the writer had the happiness of accomplishing a purpose he had long had in mind, namely, that of paying a visit to Great Plowland (anciently Plewland), in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, the birthplace of John and Christopher Wright, and also of their sister, Martha Wright, who was married to Thomas Percy, of Beverley. These three East Riding Yorkshiremen have indeed writ large their names in the Book of Fate. For, as the preceding pages have shown, they were among that woeful band of thirteen who were involved, to their just undoing, in the rash and desperate enterprise, known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot, of the year 1605, the second year of the reign of James I., King of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and progenitor and predecessor of our own Most Gracious King Edward VII. Long may he reign, a crowned and sceptred Imperial Monarch: and in Justice may his house be established for ever![A]

[Footnote A: How full of happy augury for the future of our Empire was the fine speech of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, delivered in the Guildhall, London, the 5th December, 1901, shortly following on the Prince’s and His Princess’s return to Old England’s shores, after their historic sojourning, during the year 1901, in His Majesty’s loyal Dominions beyond the seas.]

The writer arrived at the town of Patrington (the post-town of Plowland) somewhat late in the afternoon. He had not been before; but he well knew that Patrington is famous, far and near, for its stately and exquisitely-beautiful church, so aptly styled “the Queen of Holderness,” the church of Hedon being “the King.”

After viewing the general features of the little town of Patrington, which, maybe, is but slightly changed since its main street was trodden by English men and English women of “the spacious days of Good Queen Bess,” I (to have recourse to the first person singular, if the liberty may be pardoned) went in search of some ancient hostelry such as wherein “Jack Wright, Kit Wright, and Tom Percy,” then in the hey-day of their youthful strength and vigour, quaffed the foaming tankard of the nut-brown ale, or called for their pint of sack, when William Shakespeare[A] was the Sir Henry Irving of his day, and was writing his immortal dramas for all Nations and all Time.

[Footnote A: The common consent of mankind ranks Shakespeare, along with Homer and Dante, as one of the world’s three Poet-Kings.]

Such a house of entertainment “for man and beast” I found in the inn bearing the time-honoured and sportsmanlike sign of the “Dog and Duck”.

On entering the portals of this ancient hostelry the historic imagination enabled me to conjure up the sight of some of the gentlemen who, three hundred years ago, must have formed the company who assembled at the “Dog and Duck;” to discuss, maybe, a threatened Spanish invasion of England’s inviolate shores; “a progress” of the great Tudor Queen; or the action of her Privy Counsellors, Lord Burleigh, Sir Francis Walsingham, the Earl of Leicester, Sir Robert Cecil, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the ill-fated Robert Devereux Earl of Essex; or, belike, to sound the praises of that model of chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney, the General Gordon, Lord Bowen, and Matthew Arnold of his day, and the darling of his countrymen for ever.

If I had to content myself with the historic imagination alone for the sight of John Wright, one of the most expert swordsmen of his time; of Christopher Wright, who was a taller man than his brother, of a closer and more peaceable disposition; and of Thomas Percy, their brother-in-law, who was agent for his cousin, the great head of the House of Percy; and also for the vision of all those high-born, courageous, but self-willed, wayward Yorkshire Elizabethan gentlemen, in their tall hat, graceful cloak,[A] and short sword girded on their side, with their tinkling falcons on their wrist, with their cross-bows and their dogs: if I had to be content with imagination alone for all this, on that Monday, the 6th day of May, 1901, I had the sight and vision in the solid reality of flesh and blood of “mine host” of the “Dog and Duck,” who bade me welcome in right cheery tones; and, in answer to my question, told me he well knew Great Plowland, in the Parish of Welwick (being a native of those parts), and ever since he was a boy he had heard tell that some of the Gunpowder plotters had been at Plowland.[B]

[Footnote A: The cloak was then one of the outward tokens of a gentleman.]

[Footnote B: It is impossible to understand Shakespeare’s characters aright except one has first made a close study of such typical Elizabethan gentlemen as the Gunpowder plotters and their friends, and of the Elizabethan Catholic gentry in general. Hence the wide value of the labours of such men as Simpson, Morris, Pollen, Knox, and Law.]

Soon was the compact made that that very evening, ere darkness came on, “mine host” should drive me to the site of where John Wright and Christopher Wright first beheld the light of the sun. (In view of the fact that the circumstantial evidence to-day available tends to prove that Christopher Wright was the repentant conspirator who revealed the Plot and so saved King James I., his Queen, and Parliament from destruction by exploded gunpowder, it may be easily conceived that I felt great eagerness to gaze on Plowland with as little delay as possible.)

A short drive brought my driver and myself within sight of the tall “rooky” trees, the blossoming orchard, the ancient gabled buildings in the background, and the handsome two-storied red-brick dwelling, all standing, on slightly rising ground, within less than a quarter of a mile from the king’s highway, which to-day are known as Great Plowland, in the Parish of Welwick, Holderness, in the East Riding of the County of York.

This, then, was the fair English landscape whereon the eyes of Christopher Wright had rested in those momentous years, from 1570 to 1580, when “the child is father of the man!” I exclaimed in spirit.

As we were entering through the gates of Plowland I made enquiry as to the name of the owner of this historic spot. I was informed that the gentleman to whom the ancestral seat of the Wrights, of Plowland, belonged resided on his own domain.

On reaching Plowland Hall (now Plowland House), Mr. George Burnham, of Plowland House, came forward, and, with frank, pleasant courtesy, never to be forgotten, assured me that I was at liberty to see the place where the two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, had lived when boys.

I alighted from my vehicle, and being joined by Miss Burnham, sister to Mr. Burnham, the owner of the estate, we all three examined the evident traces of the moat, the remains of what must have been the old Gothic chapel, and certain ancient buildings and doors in the rear, which were left intact when old Plowland Hall was taken down, shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century, to make way for the present Plowland House.——See Frontispiece to this Book for picture of Plowland House.

[The Burnhams, of Plowland, are the grandchildren of the late Richard Wright, Esq., of Knaith, near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. One of that gentleman’s descendants is _Robert Wright_ Burnham, the eldest brother to the present owner of Plowland and his sister. The name _Richard_ Wright is found in the Register of Christenings at Ripon Minster, under date 29th March, 1599, as the son of one _John_ Wright, of _Skelton_.]

After taking leave of my kind friends, the “guardians” of Great Plowland, Mr. Robert Medforth, of the “Dog and Duck” hostelry, at Patrington, drove me to Welwick. A short survey of this characteristically East Riding Yorkshire village and its grey old Gothic church in its grave-yard, where John and Christopher Wright were christened, no doubt, brought the historical travels and explorations of Monday, May 6th, 1901, to a delightful and profitable close.

“Farewell, Plowland,” I interiorly exclaimed, when I turned myself in my conveyance, for the last time, to take the one last, lingering look, “Farewell, Plowland, once the home _not only_ of those who ‘knowing the better chose the worse,’ and who, therefore, verified in themselves that law of Retribution, that eternal law of Justice, ‘_the Guilty suffer,’ but also_ once the home of some of the supremely excellent of the earth. Farewell, Plowland, where Mary Ward, that beautiful soul, resided with Ursula Wright, her sainted grandmother, the wife of Robert Wright, the mother of Christopher Wright: where Mary Ward resided, during the five years, 1589 to 1594, before returning to her father’s house at Mulwith, in the Parish of Ripon, on the banks of the sylvan Ure.”

The Estate of Plowland came into the Wright family in the reign of Henry VIII., owing to John Wright, Esquire (a man of Kent), having married Alice Ryther, one of the daughters and co-heiresses of Sir John Ryther, of Ryther, on the banks of the “lordly Wharfe,” between York and Selby.

John Wright’s son, Robert, succeeded as the owner of Plowland (or Plewland). Robert Wright married for his second wife Ursula Rudston, whose family had been lords of Hayton, near Pocklington, from the days of King John. Ursula Wright was akin to the Mallory (or Mallorie) family, of Studley Royal, Ripon, and so a cousin in some degree to most of the grand old Yorkshire gentry, such as the Ingleby family, of Ripley Castle and of Harewell Hall, Dacre, near Brimham Rocks, in Nidderdale, and the Markenfields, of Markenfield Hall, near Ripon, to mention none others beside.[A][B][C][D] (This is shown by the Ripon Registers.)

[Footnote A: The Most Honourable the Marquis of Ripon, K.G., Viceroy of India (1880-85), and the Most Honourable the Marchioness of Ripon, C.I., are akin to John Wright and Christopher Wright, through the Mallories of Studley Royal.]

[Footnote B: The Right Honourable the Lord Grantley, of Markenfield Hall, is akin to the Wrights, through his ancestor, Francis Norton, the eldest son of brave old Richard Norton; the Mallories; the Inglebies; and many others.]

[Footnote C: Sir Henry Day Ingilby, Bart., of Ripley Castle, is likewise akin to the Wrights, the Winters, and indeed to almost all the other ill-fated plotters. I may mention also that Sir Henry is likewise related to the exalted Mary Ward, who (as was the case with her great kinswoman and friend, Lady Grace Babthorpe) lived at “lovely Ripley” in her childhood, with the Inglebies of that day, on more than one occasion, as we find recorded in Mary’s “_Life_.”]

[Footnote D: At Grantley a John Wright resided in the time of Elizabeth. He was probably brother to Robert Wright, the father of John and Christopher Wright. Grantley Hall nestles in a leafy hollow of surpassing beauty. The swift, gentle, little River Skell flows past the Hall on towards St. Mary’s Abbey, Fountains. Grantley Hall is now owned by Sir Christopher Furness, M.P. It was formerly one of the estates of the Lords Grantley.]

Robert Wright (the second Wright who owned Plowland) had been married before his marriage to Ursula Rudston. His first wife’s name was Anne Grimstone. She was a daughter of Thomas Grimstone, Esquire, of Grimstone Garth. Robert Wright and Anne Grimstone had one son who “heired” Plowland. His name was William Wright. He married Ann Thornton, of East Newton, in Rydale, a lady who was related to many old Rydale and Vale of Mowbray families in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The names of William Wright and Ann, his wife (born Thornton), are still recorded on a brass in the north aisle of Welwick Church.[A]

[Footnote A: Mass was said at Ness Hall, near Hovingham, not far from East Newton, during the early part of the nineteenth century. _I think_ that this was owing to the old Catholic family of Crathorne owning Ness Hall at this time. The Crathornes intermarried with the Wrights, of Plowland, in the days of James I. or Charles I., and I suspect that Ness Hall had been brought into the Crathorne family, through the Wrights, from the Thorntons. The Crathornes came from Crathorne, near Stokesley, in Cleveland. The Thorntons conformed to the Established Church.]

William Wright was half-brother to Ursula Ward, the wife of Marmaduke Ward, of Mulwith, Newby, and Givendale, near Ripon, the parents of the great Mary Ward, the friend of popes, emperors, kings, nobles, statesmen, warriors, and indeed of the most distinguished personages of Europe during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. William Wright (or Wryght, as the name is spelt on the brass in Welwick Church) was also half-brother to the two Gunpowder conspirators, John and Christopher Wright, who were slain at Holbeach House, Staffordshire, a few days after the capture of Guy Fawkes by Sir Thomas Knevet, early in the morning of November 5th, 1605.

The late Rev. John Stephens, Rector of Holgate, York, and formerly Vicar of Sunk Island, Holderness, told me, in September, 1900, that Guy Fawkes is said to have slept at Plowland Hall, on Fawkes’ departure for London for the last time, a tradition which is very likely to be authentic. For, as will be remembered, the Wrights, Fawkes, and Tesimond were old school-fellows at St. Peter’s School, in the Horse Fayre, Gillygate, York,[A] which had been re-founded by Philip and Mary, who likewise founded the present Grammar School at Ripon.

[Footnote A: John Wright, Christopher Wright, Guy Fawkes, and Oswald Tesimond must have many a time and oft passed through Bootham Bar, leading towards Clifton, Skelton, and Easingwold, along the great North Road. And besides the King’s Manor to the left of Bootham Bar, Queen Margaret’s Gateway, named after Queen Margaret (grandmother of Mary Queen of Scots), must have been to them all a thrice-familiar object. Queen Margaret, it will be remembered, was wife to King James IV. of Scotland, who fell at Flodden Field in 1513, fighting against the forces of the brother of the Scots’ Queen, King Henry VIII.

In 1516, Henry VIII. invited his widowed sister to London, “and good Queen Katerine sent her own white palfrey” for her poor sister-in-law’s “use.” On this memorable occasion the bereaved daughter of King Henry VII., through whom His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., in part at least, traces his august Title to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was kindly welcomed by the worthy citizens of the northern capital.——See Dr. Raine’s “_York_” (Longmans), p. 98.

In the month of July, 1900, at the Treasurer’s House, on the north side of the Minster, our Most Gracious Sovereign and His Beloved Consort (then the Prince and Princess of Wales) together with the present Prince and Princess of Wales (then the Duke and Duchess of York), graciously sojourned for a brief season: an event memorable and historic even in the proud annals of the second city of the British Empire.]

SUPPLEMENTUM VI.

St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, Blackburn, 5th October, 1901.

... You are quite correct in saying that the doctrine of Equivocation is the justification of stratagems in war, and of a great many other recognised modes of conduct.

But I despair of its ever finding acceptance in the minds of most Englishmen: since they will not take the trouble of understanding it; while, at the same time, they have not the slightest scruple in misrepresenting it. It is, of course (like most principles, whether of art, or of science, or of philosophy), not a truth immediately to be grasped by the average intellect, and, therefore, liable to much misapplication. Even the best-trained thinkers may frequently differ as to its comprehension of this or that particular concrete case.

Given the tendency of human nature, English or foreign, to shield itself from unpleasant consequences at the expense of truth, it is unsafe to supply the public with a general principle, which, precisely on account of its universality, might be made to cover with some show of reason, many an unwarrantable _jeu de mots_. There are many exceedingly useful drugs which it would be unwise to throw into the open market. Hence, I quite recognise the partial validity of the objection to the doctrine in question. But since the doctrine is so often thrust in the public face, it is as well it should appear in its true colours.

This leads me to a point which I think ought to be insisted upon, namely, that those features, which are most objectionable to Englishmen in the scholastic doctrine were devised by their authors with the intention of _limiting_ the realm of Equivocation and of safeguarding the truth more closely.

All rational men are agreed that there are circumstances in which words must be used that are _primâ facie_ contrary to truth——in war, in diplomacy, in the custody of certain professional secrets. In such instances the non-Catholic rule seems to be: Tell a lie, and have done with it. The basis of such a principle is Utilitarian Morality, which estimates Right and Wrong _merely_ by the consequences of an action. The peripatetic philosopher, on the other hand, who maintains the _intrinsic_ moral character of certain actions, and who holds _mordicus_ to the love of truth for its own sake, is not content to rest in a lie, however excusable, but endeavours, for the honour of humanity, to demonstrate that such apparent deviations from truth are not such in reality. For he perceives in them _two_ meanings——whence the name _Equivocation_——one of which may be true, while the other is false. The speaker utters the words in their true meaning, and that the hearer should construe them in the other sense is the latter’s own affair.

“_Not at home_” may mean “_out of the house_” or “_not inclined to receive visitors_.” It is the visitor’s own fault if he attaches the first meaning to the phrase rather than the second, or _vice versâ_.

No sensible man would consider a prisoner to be “lying” in his plea of “_Not Guilty_,” because a certain juryman, in his ignorant simplicity, should carry off the impression of the prisoner’s _absolute_, and not merely of his _legal_, innocence. Yet the plea may mean either both or only the latter.

Similarly, an impertinent ferretter-out of an important secret needs blame none but himself if he conceives the answer “_No_” to intimate anything else than that he should mind his own business.

As to such _facts_ there is, I should say, an overwhelming agreement of opinion. That they differ from what we all recognise as a sheer “_lie_” is pretty evident. It is, therefore, convenient and scientific to label them with some other name, and the Scholastic hit upon the not inapt one of _Equivocation_.

The malice of lying consists, according to Utilitarian Philosophy, in the destruction of that mutual confidence which is so absolutely necessary for the proper maintenance and development of civilized life. But the Scholastic, while fully admitting this ground, looks for a still deeper root, and finds it in the very fact of the discrepancy between the speaker’s internal thought and its outward expression. The difference between the two positions may be more clearly apprehended in the following formula:——The first would define a lie as “_speaking with intent to deceive_;” whereas the second defines it “_speaking contrary to one’s thought_” (_locutio contra mentem_), even where there is no hope (and therefore no intent) of actual deception. The latter is clearly the stricter view, yet very closely allied with, and supplementing, the former. For we may perhaps say with Cardinal de Lugo——and _à la_ Kant——that the malice of the discrepancy mentioned above lies in the self-contradiction which results in the liar, between his inborn desire for the trust of his fellow-men and his conviction that he has rendered himself unworthy of it——that he has, in other words, degraded his nature.

Now, where there do not exist relations of mutual confidence, such malice cannot exist. An enemy, a burglar, a lunatic, an impudent questioner, etc., are, _in their distinguishing character_, beyond the pale of mutual confidence——_i.e._, when acting professionally as enemies, burglars, etc.

In regard to such outlaws from society, some moralists would accordingly maintain that the duty of veracity is non-existent, and that here we may “answer a fool according to his folly.” If a burglar asks where is your plate, you may reply at random “_In the Bank_,” or “_At Timbuctoo_,” or “_I haven’t any_.” If a lunatic declares himself Emperor of China, you may humour him, and give him _any_ information you may imagine about his dominions, etc.

Such is the teaching of, _v.gr._, Professor Paulsen, of Berlin, in his “_System of Ethics_,” in which he is at one with Scholasticism, though, I daresay, we should not follow him in all his applications of the principle. He prefers to call such instances “_necessary lies_,” whereas we should say they were not lies at all, because they would not be rightly considered to imply _speaking_ strictly understood, that is, the communication of one’s mind to another. There is no real speech where there are no relations of mutual confidence. Practically, however, it is so far a question of name rather than of reality, of theory rather than of fact.

The doctrine of _Mental Reservation_ seems to me to differ from that of _Equivocation_ only in this, that Equivocation implies the use of words which have a two-fold meaning in themselves, _apart from_ special circumstances, and are therefore _logical_ equivoques. Thus to the question: “_What do people think of me?_” one might diplomatically reply: “_Oh! they think a great deal!_” which leaves it undetermined whether the thinking be of a favourable or unfavourable character.

But more commonly words, apart from special circumstances, have one definite meaning, _e.gr._, “_Yes_” or “_No_.” When Sir Walter Scott denied, as he himself tells us, the authorship of “_Waverley_” with a plain simple “_No_,” he was guilty of no logical Equivocation: but the circumstance that it was generally known that the author intended to preserve anonymity gave his answer the signification, “_Mind your own business._” This is what I should call a _moral_ equivoque. The Scholastics call it _broad mental reservation_ (_restrictio late mentalis_). The origin of this terminology seems to me to lie in a bit of purism. Some moralists were not content with merely _moral_ equivoques: they appear to insist on the junction with them of _logical_ Equivocation; and so they would have directed the equivocator to _restrict_ (and so double) the meaning of a word in his own mind. Thus to Sir Walter they would have said: “Don’t say ‘_No_’ simply, but add in your own head, ‘_as far as the public is concerned_,’” or something similar.

When this addition could not be conjectured by the hearer, it received the name of _pure mental reservation_ (_restrictio pure_ [or _stricte_] _mentalis_): as when one might say “_John is not here_” (meaning in his mind “not on the exact spot where the speaker stood”), though John was a yard off all the time. Such a position has not found favour in the body of Catholic moralists. They regard it as not only a useless proceeding, but as one which, although intended out of respect for truth, is liable, from its purely subjective character, to easy abuse.

But when objective circumstances (as in the case of Sir Walter) enable the hearer to guess at the double meaning and to suspend his judgment, then we have a case of _broad_ mental reservation: for it is writ large in social convention that, where a momentous secret exists, a negative answer carries with it the limitation (restriction, reservation), “_secrets apart_.”

I trust I have made it sufficiently clear that the doctrine of Equivocation, properly understood, has been devised in the interests of Veracity. That we may find in some writers, whether St. Alphonsus de Liguori or Professor Paulsen, particular applications in which we do not concur, surely does not affect the validity of the principle.

I may add that _all_ Catholic theologians with whom I am acquainted limit its use by requiring many external conditions: _v.gr._, that the secret to be preserved should be of importance; that the questioner should have no right to its knowledge, etc. In one word, that the possible damage to mutual confidence resulting from the hearer’s self-deception should be less than that which would certainly accrue from the revelation of a legitimate secret.

No one feels more keenly than we do that to have resort to Equivocation is an evil rendered tolerable only in presence of a greater evil of the same nature; and I venture to say, from an intimate knowledge of my brother “religious,” that no one is less likely to recur to it, where only his own skin is concerned, than a Jesuit.

Believe me, Yours very sincerely, George Canning, S.J.[A]

[Footnote A: The above lucid explanation of the much and (_me judice_) stupidly maligned doctrine of Equivocation will place readers of this work, as well as the writer, under an obligation of gratitude to the Rev. George Canning, who is the Professor of Ethics at St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, so I am informed by the Rev. Bernard Boëdder, S.J., Professor of Natural Theology, at that seat of learning, whom I have had the honour of meeting in York on more than one occasion. “Wisdom builds her house for _all_ weathers.” But England, relying too much on a long course of prosperity in her ruling classes, and in the protected classes immediately beneath her ruling classes, has neglected the Truth and Justice contained in this eminently rational doctrine of Equivocation. The democracy must, and will, however, insist on amiable, self-contenting, self-pleasing delusions being speedily swept away. Reason and self-interest alike will compel and compass this.

The question of Equivocation is not a question of Protestant _versus_ Catholic, but of Wise Noddle _versus_ Foolish Noddle. This is a distinct gain.]

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DEFINED AND DESCRIBED.

Circumstantial Evidence is indirect, as distinct from direct evidence. It is likewise mediate, as distinct from immediate.

Direct evidence is testimony that is a statement of what the witness himself has seen, heard, or perceived by the evidence of any one of his own five senses,[A] which testimony is directly given by a witness, to lead to the facts in issue, that is, the facts required to be proved in order to make out or to constitute the criminal case, or the civil cause of action, sought to be established, according to some rule of Law.

[Footnote A: By sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch.]

Indirect or mediate evidence is _inferred_ from a relatively minor fact or relatively minor facts already directly proved.

This _inference_ is drawn by a valid process of reasoning from a relatively minor fact or minor facts already directly deposed to by a witness, who may be a party interested in the case or cause, or a stranger-witness, either friendly or hostile.

Hence, Circumstantial Evidence is _specially_ inferential and cumulative in its nature. It denotes the resultant of a method of knowledge, which has carried the Inquirer forward by successive stages of advancement.

It implies the _inferring_ of the unknown from the known; but from a known which has been itself transmuted from the unknown, at some point of time anterior to the making of the successive stage of advancement in the knowledge of the facts sought to be proved, and vindicated by some rule of Law.

* * * * *

The following interesting account of Evidence generally is from the pen of Mr. Frank Pick, of Burton Lodge, York, a student of the Law:——

Evidence is the collective term used to denote the facts whereby some proposition, statement, or conclusion is sought to be established or confirmed.

While, as thus defined, the term Evidence primarily denotes the actual _known_ facts themselves which form the basis or point of departure, it connotes also a method or process in the development of those known facts to a resultant fact or opinion: and the resultant fact or opinion so obtained. The former is often styled _Testimony_.

This will be illustrated in Circumstantial Evidence, and in what is commonly styled “Expert Evidence,” though better, “Evidence of Opinion,” where a person from a consideration of certain facts not necessarily expressed (being likewise one specially competent to form an opinion where such certain facts are involved) gives an opinion which may be used as, and for similar purposes with, evidence as above defined.

The value of evidence, _i.e._, the completeness and efficiency with which it serves these ends, varies with, and the weight accorded to it in judgment is determined from, a review of the character or quality of the source whence these facts proceed; and the nature or proximity of the relation which they bear to the proposition, statement, or conclusion to be supported.

As regards the character or quality of its source, evidence is distinguished into primary and secondary.

Primary Evidence is the witness or testimony of personal experience, whether shown in the spoken or written word or by conduct. Or it may be described as, on its positive side, the avowal or confession of fact of a person present knowingly, at the manifestation, in consciousness of the phenomenon to which the fact corresponds: on its negative side, as the denial or negation of fact similarly conditioned.

Secondary Evidence comprises all the manifold degrees of nearness or remoteness to primary evidence.

As all degrees are here included, it is sometimes said that there are no degrees of secondary evidence. This must not be misunderstood to mean that all secondary evidence is entitled to be received as of the same degree of credibility. For a further, and in some respects parallel, distinction to that lastly taken, arises as the speech is or is not deliberate, the writing authenticated, the conduct reasoned. And in every case partiality, bias, and prejudice are grounds not to be neglected in the ascertainment of accuracy and trustworthiness.

So far as regards the nature or proximity of the relation, evidence is either direct and immediate, or indirect and mediate, called circumstantial; as concerned rather with the surrounding circumstances leading to the proof of the presumed truth of a fact than with the fact itself.

Direct Evidence comprises those facts from which, if proved, the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion necessarily follows.

Circumstantial Evidence comprises those facts from which again may be inferred facts, whence the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion must necessarily follow.

This inferential method is especially involved in Circumstantial Evidence. In all evidence there is a presumption open more or less to rebuttal, and evidence on this account is qualified as, _e.g._, _primâ facie_, conclusive. In Direct Evidence there is the presumption of the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion from the proven facts. In Circumstantial Evidence there is first an inference of directly connected facts, otherwise unknown or unevidenced from remotely connected facts, known or given in evidence; then there is further a presumption of the truth of the proposition, statement, or conclusion from these mediately established facts.

APPENDIX B.

DISCREPANCY AS TO DATE WHEN NOT MATERIAL TO ISSUE, NO DISPROOF OF TRUTH OF THE REST OF THE ASSERTION.

The above doctrine of the law of Evidence applies, of course, to whatever may be the nature or purpose of the Inquiry, whether conducted in a Court of Law, in the library of the historical scholar, or elsewhere.

The principle was soundly stated at the trial of “the Venerable” Martyrs, Fathers Whitbread, Harcourt, Fenwick, Gavan, and Turner, at the Old Bailey, by Sir William Scroggs, Knt., the Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, on the occasion of the Popish Plot Trials, in the year 1679.

“If it should be a _mistake only in point of time_, it destroys not the evidence, _unless you think it necessary to the substance of the thing_.

“If you charge one in the month of August to have done such a fact, if he deny that he was in that place at that time, and proves it by witnesses, it may go to invalidate the credibility of the man’s testimony, _but it does not invalidate the truth of the thing itself_, which may be true in substance, though the circumstance of time differ; and the question is, _whether the thing be true?_” Quoted in Morris’s “_Troubles: The Southcote Family_,” first series, p. 378 (Burns & Oates). (The italics are mine.)

APPENDIX C.